Re: How important is GR inorder to calc the precession of Mercury (banned reply)

From: Dr. Jai Maharaj (usenet_at_mantra.com)
Date: 11/18/04 

Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 07:32:03 GMT

In article <tkQmd.2127$mu4.732@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,
 "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> posted:
>
> The following post was banned from the sci.astro.research newsgroup ...
> without notice, and in violation of the newsgroup charter (as is usual for
> s.a.r).
>
> Not only are substantive responses blocked, but the moderators (T. Essel)
> dual-posted a triple reply to s.p.r. and s.a.r, that was simply boilerplate
> cheerleading for GR. Without responding to the question posted by
> Nicholaas, of course.
>
> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message news:...
> > "Nicolaas Vroom" <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> wrote in message
> > news:mt2.0-24234-1100088956@star.bris.ac.uk...
> >
> > > In the newsgroup sci.physics.relativity I started a posting with
> > > the subject title. The purpose was how do you simulate the movement
> > > of the planets, specific the movement of Mercury.
> >
> > {snip}
> >
> > > As part of the conversion from observations into the frame
> > > I also take light bending into account.
> > > My question is what are the rules that describe the behaviour
> > > of the stars and planets within this frame.
> > > It is not (If you want to be very accurate) Newton's Law because
> > > Newton's Law assumes that all forces act instantaneous.
> >
> > This is one of the areas that are not often discussed by Relativists. It
> is
> > a tricky arena, because there have been major "problems" within GR in the
> > past (and still some minor ones remain).
> >
> > > It is not SR.
> > > But is it GR. And if it GR how does it "looks". Can this not be
> > > simpler as described in books like GRAVITATION ?
> >
> > MTW is not a good way to learn GR. It's a decent way to expand your
> > knowledge in specific areas, once you have the basics down.
> >
> > > The mayor problem is what is the function of c in this frame.
> >
> > It is the speed of gravity. In GR, Einstein assumed that the speed of
> > gravity was equal to the speed of light, "c". It is not an unreasonable
> > assumption.
> >
> > > In fact what I have done as part of the conversion I have removed
> > > the human part, what is left over is a dark universe independent
> > > of human influences (almost).
> > > In a sense you should close your eyes and ask the question:
> > > which are the rules that describe the behaviour of the stars ?
> > > What is the physical explanation for this behaviour ?
> > > If the answer is gravitons than the speed of gravity cg has
> > > to be included.
> > > The question is what is the value of cg ? identical to c ?
> >
> > In Einstein's GR, yes.
> >
> > > and how do you prove this.
> >
> > The first method is simply to assume that it is true. This is the
> approach
> > taken by most Relativists, and all GR texts that I've seen. The second
> > method is to measure the non-Newtonian apside advance of orbiting bodies.
> > (Usually called the NNPA of Mercury.) The advance is a direct function of
> > the speed of gravity.
> >
> > > My understanding is that gravitons "move" in perfect straight
> > > lines and are not bended.
> >
> > Gravitons are not allowed within GR.
> >
> > > This has been proved during solar eclipses.
> >
> > Actually, no. The data that NASA gathered in 1999 has not yet been
> released
> > to the public.
>

Distribution now includes alt.censorship

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How important is GR inorder to calc the precession of Mercury (banned reply)
    ... and in violation of the newsgroup charter (as is usual for ... > Not only are substantive responses blocked, but the moderators (T. ... >> This is one of the areas that are not often discussed by Relativists. ... >> It is the speed of gravity. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Doubts about relativity dogmas
    ... Gravity as spacetime curvature. ... There are more advantages when avoiding this GR 'dogma': ... Carlip's (relativists) claims gravity travel to c is not correct. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Traditional Superficial Explanation of Relativity
    ... An example i know is the speed of gravity myth. ... myth by relativists is that radiation cannot be explained by action at ... is to write on the fundamentals of relativistic non- instantaneous ... No strange that Nobel winners particle physicists as Weinberg and Feynman ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A challenge for us!
    ... GR was constructed because SR was flawed (doesn't do gravity), ... That mean that can't interpret the gravity ... In the interval 1908 – 1914 Einstein look ... Mr. Stephen Hawking and Relativists! ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Doubts about relativity dogmas
    ... or not gravity does propagate at c is an experimental issue. ... that gravity propagates faster than c, you have no basis for your ... Carlip however concluded something very different. ... some mistakes but in some points he is not so confused as relativists ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast